Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Speaker and my good friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan, for their willingness to work with the Transportation Committee to ensure that transportation trust fund budget protections will be preserved and that trust fund dollars are not used for deficit reduction or diverted to the general fund.

It is my understanding that we have a commitment that this bill, when and if it comes out of conference, will be in a form that also honors funding guarantees and that spending will not be below guaranteed levels.

I further appreciate the clarification by Congressman Ryan that it was not his intention to negatively impact the guarantees and that he supports continuing to spend the revenues coming into the trust funds.

This is so important because in 1998 and in subsequent votes, this Congress has reaffirmed the principle that user fees collected from aviation and highway users should be used only for their intended purpose--transportation improvements.

For too long, aviation and highway trust fund spending had been suppressed in order to increase spending in other areas or to mask the size of the federal deficit, to the point that we had ballooning balances in the trust funds.

The goal of the line item veto bill here today is to achieve savings--and it had originally provided that any vetoed item be used for deficit reduction. For direct spending, this would have applied not only to ``earmarks,'' but to programs that are increased and supported by the trust funds!

This would be in direct conflict with the spending guarantees we have had in our two previous aviation and highway bills and undermined the principle that trust fund spending should be linked to trust fund revenues--it is spending that is paid for.

Using gas taxes for deficit reduction (as far as the Highway Trust Fund is concerned) was vigorously opposed by Republicans when President Clinton proposed it in 1993. It was the right position then and it is the right position today.

Again, this is not spending that contributes to the deficit--it is spending that is paid for and we should not break our promise that revenues collected will be spent on transportation.

Much as some may dispute it, programs that are supported by user fees are different--and they merit the different budget treatment that they currently have. It would be a terrible mistake to turn back the clock now, and I am glad that we are taking steps to ensure that it is not the case.

I look forward to continuing to work to fine-tune the provisions regarding the transportation trust funds in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 372) recognizing the 50th Anniversary of the Interstate Highway System.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Concurrent Resolution 372.

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Thursday, June 29, will mark the 50th anniversary of the Federal law that brought America its unparalleled interstate highway system. This 46,508-mile web of superhighways has transformed our Nation and our Nation's economy. It is a symbol of freedom and it is a tribute to human ingenuity.

As America entered the 20th century, good roads, even paved roads, were not common. In addition, it was rare for roads in one State to link up with roads in adjacent States. Roads might lead outward from cities, even to State lines, but there was no guarantee they would meet other roads in neighboring States. The concept of an interstate system as we know it today can be traced back to a 1939 report to Congress called ``Toll Roads and Free Roads.''

In 1944, the National Highway Committee, appointed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and headed by Commissioner of Public Roads Thomas MacDonald, produced plans for a national system of approximately 34,000 miles of expressways.

However, it was the efforts of President Dwight David Eisenhower that gave us the interstate highway system we have today. Eisenhower personally witnessed the need for a national highway system in 1919, when as a young lieutenant colonel in the Army he helped staff a convoy of 81 military vehicles from Washington, D.C. to San Francisco. It is kind of a modern day Lewis and Clark Expedition. The journey took 62 days, and the convoy averaged 6 miles per hour. On today's interstate system, such a trip could be easily completed in less than a week.

During the journey, Lieutenant Colonel Eisenhower formed the opinion that the United States desperately needed a better highway system. Eisenhower made the creation of an interstate system a keystone of his domestic agenda when he came into office in the early 1950s.

Eisenhower's original effort to pass legislation to create an interstate system went down in defeat in July of 1955. He was unwilling to accept defeat, however, and he resumed his campaign in 1956. Eisenhower's plan required the Federal Government to bear the majority of the construction cost, recognizing this massive public works project was vital to interstate commerce, national defense, and economic growth. His plan also established a user fee-based financing plan through a gas tax and this funding source is still the bedrock of the current Federal Aid Highway Program.

Congress passed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 in June of 1956, and on June 29, 1956, President Eisenhower signed the bill into law and set in motion the interstate system as we know it today.

I am honored to be here this afternoon to recognize the 50th anniversary of the interstate system, and I look forward to taking part in the other events that are planned throughout this month to honor this historic anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, just to conclude and build on the remarks of the dean of our committee, Mr. Oberstar, we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of a remarkable thing, a generation of Americans, some have said the Greatest Generation, that thought not just of itself, but of its country and its future and invested in the future.

They were not borrowing against existing assets, against existing assets for current expenses. Instead, they were taxing themselves or paying fees themselves to build for the future to create a greater, productive enterprise here in the United States, one symbol of that, of what we are celebrating today, the 50th anniversary of the interstate highway system, the envy of the world, the backbone of the strongest economy in the world.

I had the opportunity, as a much younger person, to meet Dwight Eisenhower on several occasions. I got out of school when I was in fourth grade to go down to the railway station in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, one of the last whistle-stop campaign trips, and again once while in high school. These groups come from all over the country to visit their legislators and so on. I was with a group about to meet President Eisenhower in the Rose Garden in the White House.

But in those days Presidents would often, not only Eisenhower, address the country. Not because there was some great crisis, but because they were always trying to rally people to a constructive cause. I remember him often speaking and saying as a former general who had known war that the true strength of a country was not embodied just in its army, though military, though that was a part of it; the true strength of a country was the moral fiber of its people and the productive capacity of its economy.

If those were tended to, you could always build military strength out of that. But if you relied solely on military strength, you would have a hollow strength and would not have the sustainability that the strong economy and character of the people could provide to face any threat.

Part of that strength is our interstate highway system. He led us to build it. It is our job to sustain and to renew it in future generations and, as a part of that, to commemorate its great contribution and success through this resolution. I urge all Members to join us in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to honor a true American hero by awarding him the Medal of Honor. On January 28, 1945, during the Battle of the Bulge, Lt. James Megellas led his platoon of the 82nd Airborne Division on a surprise and devastating attack on a much larger advancing German force, killing and capturing a large number of the enemy and causing others to flee. In an act of fearless courage, Megellas single-handedly destroyed an attacking German Mark V tank with two hand-held grenades. He then led the charge of his men and seized Herresbach, Belgium, during this fierce action of the Battle of the Bulge. Due to his aggressive, fearless and superior leadership, Lt. James Megellas inspired his men to excel.

After serving 4 years as a rifle platoon leader during World War II, including many combat jumps into Italy and Holland, Megellas left the active Army and served for 16 years in the Army Reserve. He retired after 20 years of service as a lieutenant colonel.

His awards and decorations include the Distinguished Service Cross, two Silver Star Medals, two Bronze Star Medals, two Purple Hearts, and he is credited with being the 82nd Airborne Division's most decorated officer. During World War II, Gen. James Gavin selected one 82nd officer--Lt. James Megellas--to receive the Military Order of Willhelm Orange Lanyard from the Dutch Minister of War on behalf of his division.

To this day, James Megellas continues to inspire. In February, 61 years since that momentous battle, James ``Maggie'' Megellas set foot on a battlefield with fellow 82nd Airborne Division soldiers, this time in a current theatre of war--Afghanistan. Megellas was impressed with what he saw of the paratroopers and their work. He listened to their stories of their past year of deployment and shared with them his own experiences during World War II.

I urge my colleagues to also recognize James ``Maggie'' Megellas by supporting this bill to authorize and request the President to award him the Medal of Honor for his acts of valor on January 28, 1945, during the Battle of the Bulge. As time goes by, true heroes should never be forgotten, so please join me in honoring this outstanding American hero.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to honor a true American hero by awarding him the Medal of Honor. On January 28, 1945, during the Battle of the Bulge, Lt. James Megellas led his platoon of the 82nd Airborne Division on a surprise and devastating attack on a much larger advancing German force, killing and capturing a large number of the enemy and causing others to flee. In an act of fearless courage, Megellas singlehandedly destroyed an attacking German Mark V tank with two hand-held grenades. He then led the charge of his men and seized Herresbach, Belgium, during this fierce action of the Battle of the Bulge. Due to his aggressive, fearless and superior leadership, Lt. James Megellas inspired his men to excel.

After serving 4 years as a rifle platoon leader during World War II, including many combat jumps into Italy and Holland, Megellas left the active Army and served for 16 years in the Army Reserve. He retired after 20 years of service as a lieutenant colonel.

His awards and decorations include the Distinguished Service Cross, two Silver Star Medals, two Bronze Star Medals, two Purple Hearts, and he is credited with being the 82nd Airborne Division's most decorated officer. During World War II, Gen. James Gavin selected one 82nd officer--Lt. James Megellas--to receive the Military Order of Willhelm Orange Lanyard from the Dutch Minister of War on behalf of his division.

To this day, James Megellas continues to inspire. In February, 61 years since that momentous battle, James ``Maggie'' Megellas set foot on a battlefield with fellow 82nd Airborne Division soldiers, this time in a current theatre of war--Afghanistan. Megellas was impressed with what he saw of the paratroopers and their work. He listened to their stories of their past year of deployment and shared with them his own experiences during World War II.

Today, at 89 years old, James Megellas is currently in the Netherlands, to be decorated by Her Majesty Queen Beatrix in a surprise ceremony to once again receive the Military Order of Willhelm Orange Lanyard for outstanding service.

I urge my colleagues to also recognize James ``Maggie'' Megellas by supporting this bill to authorize and request the President to award him the Medal of Honor for his acts of valor on January 28, 1945, during the Battle of the Bulge. As time goes by, true heroes should never be forgotten, so please join me in honoring this outstanding American hero.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to encourage the House to seriously look at the issue of climate change.

I agree with many of my colleagues who have spoken today on the need to address global warming and that any national policy should not significantly harm the United States economy and encourage comparable actions by other nations.

That is why I am the lead cosponsor of Congressman Tom Udall's Keep America Competitive Global Warming Policy Act. This legislation is a mandatory, economy wide, cap-and-trade all greenhouse gas reduction policy.

It sets a reasonable standard for emissions and allows companies to buy the time they need to meet reduction requirements without incurring irreparable harm.

The bill will maintain U.S. competitiveness by encouraging research and innovation as well as tie increases in the price of an emission allowance to the emissions-reducing actions of developing countries.

So I hope at some point we can come together and begin the discussion in a thoughtful, bipartisan manner and work to address this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support for this bill to name a post office in Harrison, Arkansas, in honor of the Honorable John Paul Hammerschmidt, and I am pleased to be an original cosponsor.

I had the distinct honor and privilege of serving for many years with John Paul on what was then known as the Public Works and Transportation Committee--now known as the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He completed his 26 years of service in the House as the ranking minority member of the Committee--and he provided steady leadership as we worked together to build the roads, airports and waterways needed to keep America competitive and prosperous.

He was the ranking member during the legendary ISTEA transportation bill in 1991, which moved us beyond the Interstate construction era and provided a new vision for transportation in the U.S. For many years he was ranking on the Aviation Subcommittee and has always had a keen interest in aviation issues. In 1998, after his retirement from the House, President Clinton nominated him to serve as a Member of the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. John Paul led many Committee trips to his district in Northwest Arkansas--and that usually entailed having your photo taken sporting the famous Arkansas Razorback hog hat.

While many of us are familiar with his Congressional career, some may not know of his heroic service to our country during World War II. A member of the Third Combat Cargo Group in the China-Burma-India theater from 1942 to 1945, John Paul flew 217 combat missions--primarily in Burma and China. These missions included drop missions where he dropped supplies to our troops in the jungle, all in an unarmed plane flying low over the jungle in some of the worst weather conditions imaginable while frequently coming under enemy fire. He also ``flew the hump'' as it was called, dangerous missions high over the Himalayas.

Giving constant support to John Paul was his beloved wife Virginia, who sadly passed away earlier this year. Known to all as Ginny, she was recognized for her compassionate and gentle nature. Together Ginny and John Paul served their district well.

Through John Paul's decades of service to our country, first in the Army Air Corps in World War II, here in the House of Representatives, and even today as he remains active in his community, he is thoroughly deserving of this honor. He served this House with distinction and worked effectively with Members of both parties to move important initiatives forward. He is a true gentleman, and I am proud to call him a friend.

Mr. Speaker, for the past 30 years there has been a great debate over the true impact of greenhouse gases on global warming. There is now general consensus that they are having a significant impact on our planet, and it is time for us to act. That is why I am cosponsoring Congressman Tom Udall's Keep America Competitive Global Warming Act.

His bill is a commonsense approach to reducing emissions. Unlike past legislative efforts that would drive industries out of our country and increase home energy bills exponentially, this bill takes into account the true costs of emission reductions.

The legislation sets a reasonable standard for emissions and allows companies to buy the time they need to meet our reduction requirements without incurring irreparable financial harm. What makes this bill unique and effective is that it is flexible enough to give industry the opportunity to adapt without forcing business to drastically hike prices, lay off workers or move abroad.

Greenhouse gas reduction needs to be a higher priority for this Nation. As the biggest producer of emissions, we must be a leader, a leader in demonstrating that we can reduce emissions in a meaningful way while maintaining our global competitiveness.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my disappointment that the rule to H.R. 609 does not allow my colleagues the opportunity to consider the Student Aid Reward Amendment that I sought to offer with Representative George Miller to H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act. This amendment was based on H.R. 1425, the Student Aid Reward Act, that we introduced last March. Senator Kennedy and Senator Gordon Smith have sponsored a companion bill in the Senate.

The STAR program is rooted in my long-standing belief that we have a fundamental obligation to our constituents to eliminate

waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending wherever it exists. This amendment would have done just that by cutting $13.4 billion in waste over the next 10 years. Furthermore, it would reinvest those savings both into Pell Grant aid and towards reducing the deficit at no additional taxpayer expense.

The STAR program would reward colleges and universities that choose to participate in the Federal student loan program that is most cost- effective for taxpayers and, in turn, return half of those savings to the schools in the form of Pell Grants for low and middle-income students. This would increase student aid as much as an additional $1,000 per recipient, per year.

The real opportunity in this amendment was that it allowed for an increased investment in education while not costing taxpayers a single penny more. In fact, under the STAR program, there would be enough savings not only to return half to schools that switch to the more cost-effective program, but also to provide an additional 25 percent of those savings to schools that were previously enrolled in the cost- effective program and thus already saving taxpayers money. The final 25 percent would be devoted towards deficit reduction.

All these savings are be made possible due to the startling difference in the cost between the two Federal student loan programs. For the current fiscal year, the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program costs taxpayers nearly three times as much as the exact same loan administered under the Direct Loan (DL) program. For example, if the Federal Government loans a student $100 through the FFEL program, taxpayers will subsidize nearly $11 (10.7 percent) of that loan. However, the same loan under the DL program costs taxpayers only one- third, less than $4 (3.6 percent). In fact, the President's budget office projects that taxpayers will spend $3 billion more this year alone to issue identical loans through the FFEL program than it would cost through the DL program.

Beyond the Office of Management and Budget, other budget experts continue to confirm this cost difference. Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office released a score that projected savings from this amendment in the amount of $13.4 billion over the next 10 years--and that's if only 15 percent of colleges choose to participate in the Student Aid Reward program by switching from the FFEL to the DL program. Those savings would be even more substantial with increased participation.

It is important to note that the STAR amendment would not mandate that schools select the most cost-effective program, although we hope that they would. Under this amendment, each college retains their ability to choose their student loan program. Those who choose to be more responsible with taxpayers money would be rewarded with a portion of the savings. Those that decide to continue with the more expensive program face no penalties, other than a missed opportunity to use taxpayer savings to boost their students' Pell Grants. Furthermore, each school would have the choice to leave the STAR program at the end of their five year contract if they are not satisfied with the results for their students.

A critical tenant of this program is that it is budget neutral. Any reward payments to schools are contingent upon actual taxpayer savings that year. We are confident that these savings not only exist, but amount to several billion dollars annually. Both the CBO and OMB continue to confirm this year after year.

The overarching reason that the FFEL program is so much more expensive than the DL program is the excessive subsidies paid to lenders each year to issue loans. As all lenders are guaranteed the exact same subsidies, regardless of their costs and efficiency, lenders do not compete for the benefit of taxpayers, only among themselves for market share. This practice is not only unnecessary but it is irresponsible--especially when the DL program has no similar costs.

The taxpayers not only pay interest subsidies to private lenders, they also subsidize the 13 guaranty agencies that purchase loans from the lenders after a certain period of time has passed. This is also a wasteful practice--especially when the DL program has no similar cost.

I would like to reiterate that this amendment would have in no way mandated that schools choose the DL program over the FFEL program, or even that the DL program will always necessarily be the most cost- effective program. Instead, the amendment stipulated that the Secretary of Education shall determine each year which program is most cost- effective to taxpayers and that schools who participate in that program receive some of the savings. The Secretary would do this by making use of the best data available each year.

I believe that as stewards of taxpayers' money, Congress should always seek to make government more efficient and more accountable. This amendment would have been an important step in that direction. Given the current budget environment, it is shameful that we are not taking full advantage of this opportunity to save money while rededicating some of those savings towards much-needed financial aid. This amendment would have invested over $10 billion in Pell Grants while devoting over $3 billion towards reducing the deficit without costing taxpayers a penny more. Given that this program is budget neutral for taxpayers and completely voluntary for schools, there is absolutely no reason why we should not have taken a close look at this tremendous opportunity.

Fiscal responsibility is a solidly Republican value and, in fact, one that every Member of Congress should support. That is why I am disappointed that my colleagues have been denied the opportunity to consider this amendment. I would encourage all House Members, instead, to consider cosponsoring H.R. 1425, the Student Aid Reward Act, to show their support for increased government efficiency and maximizing taxpayer investment in education.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my outrage that this conference report substantially weakens provisions providing greater consumer protection for victims of unscrupulous movers that were part of the transportation bill that was signed into law less than 4 months ago.

Let me first say thank you to Chairman Knollenberg and also to the Speaker. And I want to thank the staff, as well, for the consideration that they have given to the authorizing committees and for providing such strong support for as long as was possible. I appreciate your efforts.

But it is simply wrong that this conference report contains provisions that were specifically rejected by the Senate when it was considering its transportation bill earlier this year and that were rejected during the conference on the transportation bill this past summer.

For years I have worked to provide relief to the many citizens from all across this country who call my office and other offices around here seeking help because they have been victimized and find they have nowhere to turn. The most egregious of these situations is where a moving company holds all of their earthly possessions until they pay thousands of dollars in excess of the original estimate, basically extortion. These people find themselves in a strange city with no goods and no recourse.

The Department of Transportation is simply not suited to police the 1.5 million interstate moves that occur each year. Until recently, a total of three people were assigned to handle complaints, and they could do little about them. States which want to get involved and oversee intrastate moves with little controversy have been told by the courts that they have no jurisdiction since this is interstate commerce. So SAFETEA-LU created a partnership with the States by allowing them to enforce Federal consumer protection rules, a model that works well in other areas.

It is disheartening that only a few months after these new authorities were put in place, before they could really even take effect, some in the Senate have seen fit to reopen these provisions and basically neuter the consumer protection provisions included in SAFETEA-LU. Most shockingly, State authorities will only be able to initiate actions against certain carriers, and all others are protected no matter what their actions may be. We are putting up roadblocks when we should be tearing them down.

Mr. Speaker, inclusion of these provisions is wrong on so many levels. It is an affront to all authorizing committees that language just negotiated after years of discussion can be cast aside and changed in an appropriation bill. It is wrong that those who did not get what they wanted and were rejected both in the Senate and in conference can then get another bite at the apple and basically hijack the consumer protection provisions this Congress approved in July. What we are doing is, once again, leaving the little guy unprotected with nowhere to turn, with no recourse, as their lives are in ruins.

Could we not, for a change, stand up for the consumer against industry and correct the injustice? It is a sad day when we make it more difficult, and not less, for our citizens to get the recourse that they deserve.

This was not a move on the part of this body. Again, thanks to Chairman Knollenberg, the leadership, the Senate Commerce Committee and others who fought this hijacking. It is unfortunate for consumers across the Nation that we were not able to beat back this assault.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2005. This legislation would provide federal authorities with the necessary tools to help prevent and better investigate and prosecute eco-terror cases.

Between January of 1990 and June of 2004, extremist movements such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and the Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty (SHAC) committed more than 1,100 acts of terrorism causing more than $120 million in damages. The FBI considers these extremists groups among its most serious domestic threats.

Animal rights extremists advance their cause through ``direct action'' which includes death threats, vandalism, animal releases, and bombings. Their actions are calculated to aggressively intimidate and harass those identified as targets. Traditional targets include research and biomedical laboratories, fur farms, and restaurants. These extremists have also turned to targeting companies that do business or have a financial interest in an animal enterprise.

In my own state of Wisconsin, mink farmers and researchers at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center have experienced their own fair share of intimidation, harassment, and vandalism at the hands of animal rights extremists.

Current federal law is inadequate to address the threats posed by violent acts committed by these animal rights extremists. They have recognized the limits and ambiguities in our current statutes, such as the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, and have tailored their campaign to exploit them.

Mr. Speaker, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2005 would address gaps in the law that keep authorities from using it in the most effective manner possible. The bill provides for penalties for intentional economic disruption or damage and for intentionally causing bodily harm or placing a person in reasonable fear of death or bodily harm.

It also specifically addresses the ``tertiary targeting'' tactic employed by these extremists by prohibiting intentional damage of property belonging to a person or organization with ties to an animal enterprise.

Enactment of this legislation will enhance the ability of law enforcement and the Justice Department to protect law-abiding American citizens from violence and the threat of violence posed by animal rights extremists.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 1691, a bill to designate the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Appleton, Wisconsin, as the ``John H. Bradley Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic.'' While Americans may not recognize Mr. Bradley's name, we have all been inspired by his image.

John ``Doc'' Bradley was born in Antigo, Wisconsin, on July 10, 1923. During World War II, he was assigned to the 28th Marines of the 5th Marine Division, where he took part in the Pacific campaign at Iwo Jima, Japan. In 1945 Pharmacist's Mate Second Class Bradley, along with five U.S. Marines, raised the American flag on Mount Suribachi displaying victory over the Japanese during the Battle of Iwo Jima.

This act became a lasting symbol of the great bravery and courage of our troops, and a never-ending display of the enduring American spirit. It is appropriately depicted in the U.S. Marine Corps Memorial near Arlington National Cemetery. Mr. Bradley was awarded the Navy Cross, Purple Heart, Presidential Unit Citation with one star, American Campaign Medal, Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with one star, and the World War II Victory Medal for ``extraordinary heroism as a Hospital Corpsman in action against enemy Japanese forces on Iwo Jima.''

Upon Mr. Bradley's return to Antigo after his service, he owned a small business and gave generously of his time to his community. He passed away on January 11, 1994, after 47 years of marriage which was blessed with eight children. He was the longest surviving member of the six who ``raised the flag on Iwo Jima''. He rests in the peace that he deserves as a national hero, in his hometown today.

It is truly appropriate to honor Mr. Bradley, who gave so much to his country, as our brave men and women of the armed services continue to do today. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1691.

Mr. Speaker, in less than a week, we will have passed supplementals providing over $60 billion in emergency aid to respond to the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. We have been told we are spending about $2 billion a day in hurricane response efforts. We all want to care for those who have suffered damaged homes and those who have been left homeless, many with literally only the shirts on their backs, by this terrible storm. I realize many face an uncertain future with unemployment gone and only questions remaining.

At the same time, $60 billion spent over 6 weeks creates an opportunity for waste and unwise spending decisions. I want the funds to go to those who need it and those who have and continue to suffer. But we also owe it to our constituents--and indeed perhaps even more to Katrina's victims--that these funds be spent based on careful consideration of what is needed and what is the best and most effective--and cost effective--method for achieving our goals.

Chairman Lewis has stressed the accountability provisions included in the bill. The Inspector General of the Homeland Security Department will be monitoring the expenditure of these funds. The Appropriations Committee will receive weekly reports on how the funds are allocated.

We all want to respond to this disaster in the most compassionate way possible. But we also have an obligation as elected officials to ensure that funds we spend are carefully considered, used for true critical and emergency functions, and spent wisely.

Once all are out of harms way with immediate needs met, I hope that we will slow down and move forward in a deliberative way as we consider continued response and, most importantly, long-term plans for rebuilding the Gulf Coast. We will be held accountable, as we should be, for the investment of the funds. While the American people want us to be generous, there are many hard decisions ahead. It is incumbent on all of us in the Congress to ensure that we invest our taxpayer dollars in the most responsible way.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I would like to reciprocate and say I appreciate working with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and his staff. It has been a pleasant experience at a time when people are deploring this body in some corridors for its partisanship.

I think our committee, under the leadership of the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), has worked in a very constructive and bipartisan way. It does not mean we always agree, but I think we have a better product because I think we are each looking at things and sharing our different perspectives and trying to work out something that is in the best interest of our country.

I obviously would be remiss if I did not acknowledge and thank very heartily Debbie Gephardt on my staff, who has spent many years on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure staff.

We sometimes up here do not properly acknowledge the hard-working career people, in this case at the United States Department of Transportation, who provide the analysis and, hopefully, the facts that enable us to at least have some idea of what we are trying to accomplish and whether we are succeeding in that effort. Susan Binder, Ross Kreiton, and Rita Merish in particular have been tireless and have been available 24 hours a day to do runs and to provide information and have helped the process enormously.

Mr. Speaker, today we come to the end of a 2-year odyssey as we have worked to put together a transportation reauthorization bill. We face tremendous expectations and pressures with a finite amount of money, much less than is necessary to meet the overwhelming transportation needs across our United States.

During this reauthorization effort, I and others on the committee have traveled to cities across the Nation and met with governors, mayors, business and labor interests and others, seen firsthand the many critical and necessary information projects that we as a Nation need to complete.

The report before us today is a step forward in helping to meet those needs. A total of $295 billion in contract authority and $286-plus billion in guaranteed spending over 6 years is provided for Federal highway, transit and safety programs.

The conferees were sensitive to the needs of donor States as well as donee States. Donor States will see increases in their rates of return, reaching a 92 percent rate of return in 2008 and 2009. There is a minimum growth rate of 19 percent to protect other States.

A revamped highway safety construction program has been included. Likewise, we have revised the current border program into a formula fund to meet increasing needs for States facing high infrastructure costs from increasing foreign trade growing traffic.

Environmental streamlining, planning and other administrative improvements seek to make project delivery more efficient without lessening needed environmental protections. Safety programs administered by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the National Traffic Safety Administration will see increased funding. Important new initiatives to encourage seatbelt use, decrease drunk driving, and enhance motorcycle training and education opportunities are included in this legislation.

I am particularly pleased that this conference report contains many provisions that were included in legislation I introduced last Congress to help consumers who find themselves at the mercy of unscrupulous movers. While the overwhelming majority of household good movers are honest businesses, it has become clear that we need greater enforcement tools. In this bill we are providing authority to the States to enforce Federal regulations geared to protect consumers and supplement the efforts of the U.S. Department of Transportation in overseeing over 1.5 million interstate moves per year. New penalties are created and opportunities for consumer information will be enhanced.

The bill also looks to the future in assessing the critical issues that we must confront if we are to have a first-class infrastructure that is so necessary to remain competitive and to spur economic prosperity. The bill contains several important provisions regarding future transportation needs, in particular, freight needs and financing of the highway trust fund.

Currently, the trust fund is financed by the Federal gas taxes. With the rise of alternative fuels and greater fuel efficiency, this is just not cutting it any more. We are relying on a 20th century mechanism in a 21st century world. Future trust fund revenue projections are not encouraging, so we must confront this issue sooner rather than later.

It is perhaps appropriate that we are passing this conference report today as a tribute to the current Federal Highway Administrator, Mary Peters, who will be retiring on July 31 after more than 4 years of dedicated service at the Department of Transportation. I would like to wish Mary and her husband well as they ride their Harleys to their new life back in their home State of Arizona.

Our former colleague and chairman of the Public Works Committee, Secretary Norm Mineta, has also provided his usual reliable advice and counsel in crafting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, one of the last items negotiated between House and Senate in this Conference Report were pending requests for exemptions from hours-of-service regulations for truck drivers in various industries. I personally believe that safety and economic realities require that there be greater flexibility in the rigid rules and regulations governing hours of service and I was disappointed that many of these exemptions did not receive more positive consideration.

One exemption that I supported, but was ultimately not accepted, would provide emergency flexibility that permits the re-rail industry to quickly respond to the true emergency needs that arise from railroad derailments and accidents. The failure to provide an emergency exemption for the Rerail Industry will result in a continuing denigration of our ability to protect the lives of citizens living along rights of way, assure highway safety and expedite interstate commerce by quickly clearing train derailments.

Today these emergency responders of the rail mode are often given the Hobson's choice of rapidly clearing wrecks that endanger lives and property and can cost millions of dollars in stacked up traffic or being penalized for violating hours of service. This is neither fair nor is it in the public interest. One of the best examples is the Weyauwega, Wisconsin derailment that took place in my own Congressional District. In this case a derailment overturned 15 cars of hazardous material and ruptured three cars of LPG and propane which ignited and threw fireballs 300 feet into the air. The derailed train was blocking a grade crossing and emergency responders could not reach a flaming feed mill and storage building. The resulting fire continued to burn and the entire town was evacuated for over 2 weeks.

According to the current rules, driver-operators may not legally be allowed to respond immediately to such an accident. But this is exactly the choice that must be made over and over again by the men and women who work in this industry. The situation these companies and their drivers are placed in is neither fair nor is it in the public interest. The issue here is balancing of hours of service flexibility against the terrible consequences of not responding quickly.

The exemption I sought was to provide rerail drivers with exactly the same treatment currently provided tow truck drivers under existing regulation during a declared emergency. As we learned in Weyauwega, consequences of a train derailment can be far more severe than your average highway accident and should be treated accordingly. I intend to continue to work with both the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Congress to provide those who respond to and rail wrecks with exactly the same treatment as tow truck operators.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 212) to correct technical errors in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 3377.

Mr. Speaker, House and Senate negotiators are meeting daily and making great progress in trying to finalize a multi-year reauthorization bill. It is accurate to say that we are closer to completing a conference report than we have ever been in the past.

But these are complicated issues and as we work through all the difficult questions, we need additional time to complete policy issues and resolve the distribution of funds to the States. This is an intricate puzzle that must be put together to ensure all the moving pieces fit and work together in a coherent way.

I know Members may be impatient and I join them in that sentiment. But I can assure Members that we are meeting and working every day. We are trying to meet the overwhelming demands placed on this program and develop a conference report that can be passed by both bodies.

To that end, I urge support for H.R. 3104, which will extend our highway, transit and safety programs through July 19.